Jesse MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the specific timeframes tested (1m through 1d) and that it returns an optimal recommendation. However, it lacks safety disclosure (read-only vs destructive), execution duration expectations, or side effects typical for backtesting operations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Uses efficient docstring format (Args/Returns). Every sentence earns its place: first sentence establishes purpose, second enumerates specific timeframes, Args section handles parameter semantics. No redundancy or wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema (per context signals), the brief Returns section is adequate. With only 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description successfully documents both. Could improve by noting this is an analysis/read-only operation, but sufficient for selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage. The description compensates by defining both parameters: 'strategy_name: Strategy to test' and 'pair: Trading pair'. While it clarifies semantic meaning, it omits format guidance (e.g., pair syntax like 'BTC-USD') and how to discover valid strategy names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description opens with specific verb 'Compare' + resource 'strategy performance' + scope 'across different timeframes'. The explicit enumeration of tested timeframes (1m, 5m, 15m, 1h, 4h, 1d) effectively distinguishes this from siblings like backtest_comprehensive or backtest_run.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like backtest_comprehensive, backtest_run, or backtest_optimize_parameters. The description states what it does but not the selection criteria or prerequisites (e.g., whether strategy must be validated first).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.